بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

THE MEANING OF
CIVILISATION (HADHARA)

A civilisation (hadhara)
is a collection of concepts about life; it can be divine—from god—or it can be
from man. The divine civilisation emanates from a doctrine ('aqeedah);
for example, the Islamic civilisation emanates from the Islamic aqeedah. The
man-made civilisation may emanate from a doctrine or it may not. The western
capitalist civilisation is a collection of concepts about life emanating from
the doctrine of separating religion from life. Conversely, the Shinto, Greek,
Babylonian and Assyrian civilisations do not emanate from a doctrine. This type
of civilisation is simply a collection of concepts that a people or a group of
peoples have agreed upon, it is called a man-made, or national, civilisation.

It is possible for a
people or peoples to have a religion (deen) and a doctrine, but for the religion
to have no concepts regarding life; this is the case with the religions like
Christianity and Buddhism. Because their doctrine doesn’t produce these
concepts, people instead agree on a set of concepts about life that are
specific to them and these concepts form their civilisation. This civilisation
does not have any relationship with their religion because it does not emanate
from it. So their civilisation is not a divine one, despite the fact that they
have a religion. Hence, it is possible for various peoples to associate in one
civilisation, despite the difference of their religions like the Japanese,
Hindus and Sikhs and French; their religions are different but their
civilisation is one, namely capitalism.

Material objects
that are used in life's affairs are not part of civilisation, even though they
sometimes result from it. There is nothing wrong with giving the technical
term, ‘madaniyya’ to these tangible material objects, so as to
distinguish them from the collection of concepts for which we used the term, ‘hadhara’
(civilisation). If these material objects resulted from—and are specific to—a
particular civilisation, like statues for example, then they are part of the
specific madaniyya.However, if they resulted from science and
industry; like television, rockets, planes and penicillin for example, then
they are from the universal madaniyya. So madaniyya can be
specific, and it can be universal. The nature of the madaniyya is
different to the nature of civilisation, in that civilisation cannot be
anything but specific. The meaning of specificityis
related to our [the Muslims’] adoption. So it is not permitted for us to adopt
that which is specific, whereas it is permitted for us to adopt anything that
is universal.

The distinction
between civilisation (hadhara) and madaniyya must be observed at
all times, similarly it is imperative to distinguish between the madaniyya
that is derived from civilisation and the madaniyya that is derived from
science and industry. This is in order to observe the distinction between the
types of objects when adopting madaniyya. There is nothing wrong with
adopting the western madaniyya that is derived from science and
industry. As for the western madaniyya that is derived from the western
civilisation; it is not permitted to adopt it in absolutely any case. This is
because its doctrine (‘aqeedah) contradicts the Islamic civilisation,
and this doctrine is the basis upon which it is built. Our doctrine is
different from their doctrine (which is built upon a compromise solution and
the separation of religion from life) in its outlook on life (i.e. criterion
for actions), which is the halal and haram for us, and benefit
for them. Our doctrine is also different in what it means by happiness (i.e.
permanent tranquillity), which is attaining the pleasure of Allah for us, and
attaining the bodily pleasures for them.

In order that we
become fully aware of what we adopt from others and what we leave, it is
necessary to distinguish between civilisation and the madaniyya, and
between the madaniyya that results from civilisational concepts and the madaniyya
that results from pure sciences and industry.

If it is said; “Why
did you adopt the term, ‘hadhara’ for concepts and the term, ‘madaniyya’
for the material objects instead of the reverse?” The response to this is; the
linguistic meaning of, ‘hadhara’ is to reside in a civilised region
(like a town), while ‘al-hadhir’ is the one who is from the town or
village. Al-Qatami said; “Whoever is pleased with residing in towns. Which
Bedouin men will see us?”

To, ‘madana’
in a place means to reside therein, and ‘madina’ means to arrive to the
town (madinah), so the two meanings are close to each other. Similarly
it is said [concerning hadhara] in response to our self-directed
question; hadhara is used linguistically for meanings related to
thoughts, so it is more appropriate to use it for describing concepts. It was
said in Al-Qamus; “Hadhura islike nadusa,which
is the man of eloquence, (bayan) and understanding (fiqh).” In Al-Lisan,
it is said; “a man [is] ‘hadhr’, to mean he is eloquent, and a man ‘hadhir’
if he brought something good.” It also came in Al-Lisan; “and in the
hadith; ‘Say that which yahdhurukum’, i.e. that which is present
and existing in you, and do not burden yourselves with something else.” So hadhara
is closer in meaning, more consistent and more appropriate to use as the term
for the collection of concepts than madaniyya is. Similarly madaniyya
is closer in its meaning and more suitable to be used as the term for the
material objects. It can been said that there isn’t any disputation with
regards to technical terminology (istilah), since what is important is
distinguishing between the concepts and the material objects derived from them,
and between these objects and those derived from pure sciences, inventions and
industry. The objects that are derived from concepts are rejected and it is not
permitted to take them, while it is permitted to take the ones that are not
derived from the concepts.

We have said that
the civilisation (hadhara) is a collection of concepts about life, and
that either it is a divine civilisation or a man-made civilisation. An example
of the divine civilisation is the Islamic civilisation, and an example of the
man-made civilisation is the Indian civilisation and the western civilisation.
The existence of these civilisations is a definite matter and an incontestable
established fact. Similarly, the difference between them is an established
fact; such that nobody but the liar can deny it. The source of the divine
civilisation, according to its people, is revelation; whilst the source of the
man-made civilisation is the people who agreed upon it. This alone is enough to
show the distinction and difference. Even if there appears to be a similarity in
some of their concepts, it is not actually an agreement, similarity or common
matter. This is because civilisation, when it is adopted, must be adopted
together with the basis from which it emanated, or the basis upon which it is
built. So if the bases of the two civilisations are different, the agreement
between some of their concepts, or the existence of a similarity between some
of their concepts about life, is not worth paying any attention to. This is
because the concept is a branch from its basis, and it cannot be adopted except
with its basis. Both the Islamic civilisation and the western civilisation
allow the eating of fish, the wearing of wool, private property, women to act
as represenatives, accounting the ruler and taking medicine. However, these
ideas and their like are not considered to be from the Islamic civilisation
unless they are adopted on the basis of the revelation from Allah to Muhammad
(saw) (i.e. upon their being Shar'a), whereas in the capitalist
civilisation they are adopted on the basis of their benefit (maslaha) or
rational preference. If the Muslim adopts them based upon benefit or rational
preference, it is not considered to be adopting from Islam.

The difference
between civilisations is a fact that can’t be denied. What concerns us is the
difference between the Islamic civilisation and the other civilisations, in
particular the western civilisation. We also want to see what results from or
is built upon this difference, such as; dialogue [with a view to
reconciliation], the clash (as-sira'a), the possibility of founding one
universal civilisation, the forms and types of clash, and whether the clash
will end, be concealed, or result in victory for one civilisation over the
others? What is the meaning of dialogue between religions in the eyes of those
who call for it, and what is the correct view on it? And what is the difference
between religions and civilisations? And there are many issues besides these.

Religions are of two
types. Firstly there is the religion from which a civilisation emerges—meaning
it has a collection of concepts about life—such as the Islamic deen.
Secondly, there is also the religion from which no civilisation emerges—and
there isn’t a collection of concepts [about life] contained in it—this is like
the Christian religion. Although it has ideals like, ‘Do not steal’, and, ‘do
not commit zina’, it has no collection of concepts covering all aspects
of life. Hence, the Christian religion is an appropriate example of a religion
from which no civilisation emanates.

The capitalist
civilisation does not emanate from the Christian religion; even if it came
about in countries where the majority of the people are Christians. So the
dialogue, clash, or partnership between Islam and Christianity differs from the
dialogue or clash between it and the capitalist civilisation.

THE MEANING OF
DIALOGUE (AL-HIWAR) BETWEEN CIVILISATIONS

When we speak about
dialogue or clash we are speaking about the Muslims, their deen and
their civilisation being on one side, and the Christians with their religion
and the capitalists with their civilisation, being on the other side. It is a
malicious attempt by the leaders and intellectuals of the capitalist
civilisation to differentiate between Islam and its followers i.e. between
Islam and Muslims. So they claim that Islam is great but that Muslims are
backward and some of them are terrorists. They are lying when they propagate
this view, since if they really thought that Islam was great then they would
have embraced it. However, they attempt to delude the naïve from amongst the
Muslims, attempting to reduce the rancour that is generated against them when
they strike the Muslims, or when they try to spread the concepts from their
civilisation among the Muslims. They know that the Islamic aqeedah still
remains in the souls of the Muslims and that it is strong in the majority of
them. So if they openly declare their enmity to Islam, they will stir up the
Muslims and provoke them. So they use these words as a weapon to anaesthetise
Muslims and to deceive them. Some Muslims would swallow this bait and accept
this dialogue in the way it is presented by the Christians and capitalists, or
promoted by their intellectual agents. They concentrate on three matters in
defining dialogue. The first is equality between religions and civilisations in
the dialogue without superiority or preference of a religion or civilisation
over another. The second is that the limit of the dialogue is restricted to
only knowing the other’s opinions without addressing these opinions in respect
of refutation or invalidation. The third is creating an alternative
civilisation through arriving at the common denominators between the two
religions and two civilisations.

This is the meaning
of dialogue as they see it. They claim that its benefit is; “Productive
interaction between cultural peculiarities, to form an alternative, superior
civilisation, that invites to accept the other on the same footing” [Dr Milad
Hanna in a cultural debate held in Cairo on Monday 02/04/2001].

And; “Every
time civilisations seek to find what is common between them and what is human,
they advance, flourish, and peace would spread” [Dr. Jafar Abdussalam, the
Secretary-General of the Conference of Islamic Universities]. One of them went
to the extent of saying that; “Islam is a deen of interaction and a deen of
development, and not like what is said, that it is a deen of obscurity and a
deen of isolation. On the contrary, the golden age of Islam and Muslims was
when the Islamic civilisation interacted with other civilisations in the world,
and when Islam spread in the world, took from and had a room for all the
legacies and other human civilisations and gave them from its legacy and
civilisation. This was the golden age of the Islamic State” Dr. Qasim Jafar spoke, in a study
circle on ‘The First War of the Century’, on Al-Jazeera channel, under the
heading; ‘Are the American explosions an incentive for dialogue or the clash of
civilisations?’ on 29/9/2001. He said; “It is upon us as Arabs and Muslims to
abstain from this problem…it is upon us to possess sufficient confidence in
ourselves, in our civilisation, and in our history and legacy, so as to burst
forth in the world from the position of equality, and not the position of the
follower (tabi')…” [The above-mentioned study circle of Al-Jazeera
channel].

Another said; “The
Islamic civilisation was based upon the common denominator between world
civilisations, so it accepted the others and interacted with it in taking and
giving” [Amr Abdulkarim, a political scientist – IslamOnline.net]. Another
person attempted to use the aayaat of the Noble Qur'an as evidence for
the dialogue between civilisations so he said; “And our Book, the Glorious
Qur'an, emphasises the manner of dialogue with the others; dialogue with
polytheists (mushrikeen), ‘If one of the polytheists seeks your
protection, grant him protection until he hears the word of Allah’,
dialogue with disbelievers (kafireen), ‘O you disbelievers’,
dialogue with the current and official religions in the world, ‘Say; O
People of the Book, come to a just word between us and you, that we worship
none but Allah, that we associate nothing with Him, nor some of us take others
as lords’; dialogue with them from a position of equivalence…I view that it
is not possible to speak of eternal struggle because we are Muslims. I point to
the Qur'anic ayah, ‘Come to a just word between us and you’. This
ayah means that it is allowed for us to have dialogue with Christians;
we have dialogue with Jews, and we have dialogue with others. Why [do we have
this dialogue]? It is to come to a common word between us; we do not say that
we [have] dialogue to [bring them to] our word [our views]” [Ata-Allah
Muhajirani, Iranian President adviser for the dialogue of civilisations in the
above mentioned study circle of Al-Jazeera].

There are those who call to
dialogue between religions to create common denominators between them, and stay
silent about the points of difference, in order to desensitise Muslims to the
clash. They call to the saying, ‘the sons of Abraham’, to strengthen dialogue
between the three religions on the basis that those who came with them descend
from one father namely Ibrahim (as).

Some Muslims use the aayaat of the
Noble Qur'an that say the Prophets were Muslims as a proof for this, like His
(swt) saying at the tongue of Nuh; “And I was commanded to be the first of
the Muslims” [TMQ 39:12], at the tongues of Ibrahim and Ismail; “Our
Lord! Make us Muslims to you and of our descendants Muslims to you” [TMQ
2:128], and about the people of Lut; “And We did not find therein but one
house of Muslims” [TMQ 51:36], and at the tongue of the disciples (hawariyyin);
“And bear witness that we are Muslims” [TMQ 3:52].

Perhaps there will
come those who say that Christians and Jews are Muslims, and we hear those who
say that the followers of the three religions are believers even though the
Qur'anic texts, which are definitely proven and of definite meaning, are
decisive in charging Jews and Christians with disbelief such as His (swt) saying;
“Verily those who disbelieve in Allah and His Messenger and wish to
distinguish between Allah and His Messenger and say, ‘We believe in some and
disbelieve in others’, and wish to adopt a way in between. Those are in truth
disbelievers, and We have prepared for the disbelievers a humiliating
punishment” [TMQ 3:150-1].

And; “Those
who disbelieve among the People of the Book and the polytheists were not going
to leave (their disbelief) until there came to them clear evidence. A Messenger
from Allah reciting pure pages” [TMQ 98:1-2].

And; “Say; O People of the
Book, why do you disbelieve in the aayaat of Allah while Allah is witness over
what you are doing?” [TMQ 3:98].

And; “Those who disbelieve of the
People of the Book and polytheists do not like that there should descend upon
you any good from your Lord. But Allah chooses for His mercy whoever He wills.
And Allah is the Owner of great bounty” [TMQ 3:105].

And; “O People of
the Book, why do you disbelieve in the aayaat of Allah while you bear witness?”
[TMQ 3:70].

And; “And because of their disbelief and uttering a grave
falsehood (buhtan) against Mary” [TMQ 4:156].

And; “Surely they
disbelieve who say, ‘Allah is the third of three’” [TMQ 5:73].

And; “Fight
those who believe not in Allah and the Last Day, nor forbid what Allah and His
Messenger forbid nor follow the deen of truth among the People of the Book
until they pay the jizyah readily and subdued” [TMQ 9:29].

And; “He it
is Who drove out those who disbelieve among the People of the Book from their
homes at the first gathering” [TMQ 59:2].

So, they are disbelievers (kuffar),
and they are non-Muslims. It is not permitted to term them Muslims. Islam
linguistically means submission and in the technical Shari'ah
terminology, it means the deen that Allah subhanahu revealed upon
Muhammad (saw). If it was permitted to assign the term Islam (with its
linguistic meanings) to the previous Prophets (as) and to those who believed in
and followed them before the mission of Muhammad (saw) and before the
distortion of their books, it was not permitted to do that after his (saw)
mission. So whoever does not believe in him (saw) and his message is a kafir,
and it is not allowed to call him a Muslim or a believer. He ta'ala
said; “And say to those given the Book and the illiterate (Arab pagans); do
you submit yourselves (in Islam)? If they become Muslims, they are guided, and
if they turn away, your duty is only the conveyance. And Allah is Seer of His
slaves” [TMQ 3:20]. And he (saw) said; “By the One in whose hand is Muhammad's
soul, none hears of me of this Ummah, Jew or Christian, then dies without
believing in what I was sent with except he is of the denizens of the Fire.” And
ibn Hibban extracted from the hadith of Anas that Caesar wrote to the Messenger
of Allah (saw); “I am a Muslim”, and the Messenger of Allah (saw) said when he
read the letter; “The enemy of Allah lied. He is not a Muslim and he is upon
Christianity.”

Amr Musa,
Secretary-General of the Arab League, made clear that he does not believe that
one civilisation is better than another civilisation, and from the meaning of
his words the Islamic civilisation is not preferable to the capitalist, Hindu
or Jewish civilisations, for he says; “We do not believe that there is a better
civilisation”, in the exposition of his refutation of the Italian Prime
Minister Berlusconi. One of them attempted to use the aayaat of suratAl-Kahf as an evidence for accepting others as they are, without
restriction or condition, and without attempting to pronounce judgments against
him; “Religious dialogue is the attempt of the individual encumbered with
precedent values, conventions, and beliefs to discover the other (of a
different religion) – as he is – and understand him and crystallize a
philosophical and unconventional (new and unbiased) view towards him without
resorting to pronouncing prejudiced value judgments against him…The advocates
of religious dialogue raise the slogan of sincere intention. So he divests
himself of all conditions and goals except the desire to understand the other
and view him intellectually…The content of dialogue does not, in principle,
differ with the story that the Noble Qur'an brought in SuratAl-Kahf
(aayaat 32-42) about the dialogue between two men. Allah gave one of
them two gardens of grapes surrounded by palm trees and with crops in the
middle, rivers flowing therein; and Allah increased its owner over the other in
property and children. The tale reveals that the dialogue took place between
the two men without condition or restriction, and the Qur'an brought it with
its complete details; despite the inclusion of the kufr of one of them
in Allah, the other did not interrupt the dialogue because of it. Likewise the
Qur'an did not refrain from mentioning the sayings of kufr, because in their
totality they are able to build and formulate the intellectual examination of
the personality disbelieving in Allah 'azza wa jalla…Religious dialogue
differs from comparative religion and religious competition even if these
concepts commingle in the literature. Comparative religion is a science meaning
study of a religion in comparison with others upon the level of the creed ('aqeedah),
legislation and ritual worships, and its views about man, the universe and life
and the like, of assuming objectivity and the possibility of eliminating
prejudice. Whereas religious competition is a process aiming to prove the
superiority and distinction of a religion over the other; a matter which is not
off course aimed by religious dialogue which a process of understanding only”
[Husam Tammam, researcher and journalist, Egypt, IslamOnline.net, under the
title; ‘Religious Dialogue: A Human Necessity or world Conspiracy’].

These quotations are
necessary in order to know what the advocates of religious dialogue intend by
thisexpression, which is their technical terminology. The best thing to
guide us to the meaning of this technical terminology is what they themselves
say or write, since the linguistic meaning does not benefit us here. From all
of these quotations, it is possible to crystallize the meaning of this
technical terminology in the following:

Firstly: Equality and equivalence between religions
and civilisations, and non-preference between one religion and another or one
civilisation and another.

Secondly: Accepting the other as it is and discovering
it without pronouncing judgments against it, but rather understanding and
recognizing its views without restriction or condition.

Thirdly: The objective of dialogue between
civilisations is interaction in order to create an alternative superior
civilisation by finding out what is common and good for mankind; a matter that
leads to the advancement and flourishing of civilisations, and the spreading of
peace. The objective of dialogue between religions is to prevent Islam from entering
the arena of the struggle.

All these concepts
completely contradict Islam. There is not a single concept from these that has
evidence or probable evidence for it. They are not from Islam; rather they are
all distortion and deception, and their danger against Islam is certain.

Talk 1 titled "The Significance of Rajab: A Journey through History" by Br Soadad Doureihi "from the Public Lecture titled "The Significance of Rajab 2013" held by Hizb ut-Tahrir Australia on the 25/05/2013 in Sydney, Australia.

Monday, May 27, 2013

Jum'ah
Khutbah: Rajab and the Ghazwah of Tabuk: A comparison between the Messenger
(saw), the Khulafaa and the rulers of our day.

First part:

O people: We
have now entered the month of Rajab and in this month in the 9th year of Hijrah
the Messenger of Allah (saw) went out on the military expedition (Ghazwah) of Tabuk.
It was last military expedition that he undertook and it was known as the
Ghazwah of Al-'Usrah (Hardship).

The reason
for the Ghazwah was that a number of traders who had come from Ash-Shaam began
to spread that the Romans had gathered a host and wanted launch a major
military expedition. Heracliushad joined his army and he
called his main military leaders in the region against the Messenger of Allah
(saw) and they gathered in Al-Balqaa' (which lies in South-east Jordan) whilst
he (Heraclius) was waiting in Homs. Therefore the Messenger of Allah (saw) sent
his companions to Tabuk which was in the lands of Al-Balqaa' and he sent word
to the surrounding tribes, to Makkah and to those who had become Muslim from
Khuzaa'ah, Muzainah and Juhainah and urged them to join the Jihaad and Ghazwah.

The
Messenger (saw) explained to the people that the journey would be long, that
the heat would be severe and that the enemy would be large in number, so that
they could be prepared. He ordered the companions who were wealthy to aid those
who had no material strength and so anybody who had any wealth presented it and
the Sadaqaat were large despite it being a time of hardship and meagre means.
Due to all of this the army was called: 'The army of hardship' (Jaish
Al-'Usrah').

The
Messenger of Allah (saw) organised his military above Thaniyat Al-Wadaa' from
amongst those who joined him from the Muhaajireen, the Arab tribes, Banu
Kinaanah, the people of Tihaamah, Muzainah, Juhainah, Tay and Tameem. He
appointed Az-Zubair over the banner of the Muhaajireen, Talhah Ibn 'Ubaidillah
was appointed over the right flank of the army whilst 'Abdur Rahmaan Bin 'Auf
was placed in charge of the left. And he designated that 'Ali (ra) be left to
take care of his family, his wives and his Muhaajirs. And when the Messenger
(saw) prepared to march towards Tabuk he stood and addressed the people. He
began with Al-Hamdu Lillah and praised Allah before stating: "The most
truthful of speech is the Book of Allah Ta'Aalaa, and the most firm of holds is
the word of Taqwaa, the best of religions is the religion (Millah) of
Ibraaheem, the best of the Sunan is the Sunnah of Muhammad, the most honourable
of speech is the remembrance of Allah, the best of narratives is this Qur'aan
and the best of matters are those that are firmly resolved upon and the worst
of matters are its innovations, the most perfect of guidance is the guidance of
the Anbiyaa (prophets), the most noble of deaths is to be killed as a martyr,
the most blind of all blindness's is misguidance after being guided, the best
knowledge is that which is benefited from, the best guidance is that which is
put into practice, the worst of blindness is the blindness of the heart, the upper
hand is better than the lower hand and that which is little but sufficient is
better than that which is a lot but frivolous... And insulting a believer is
rebellious disobedience and killing a believer is disbelief, eating his flesh
is an act of disobedience to Allah, and the sanctity of his property is like
the sanctity of his blood, he who swears by Allah falsely has denied him, the
one who forgives Allah forgives him, he who pardons Allah pardons him, the one
who suppresses anger is rewarded by Allah, the one who perseveres in
misfortunes is compensated by Allah, the one who acts for fame and reputation
is disgraced by Allah, the one who is patient Allah multiplies his reward and
the one who disobeys Allah, Allah will punish him. O Allah forgive me and my
Ummah, IO Allah forgive me and my Ummah, O Allah forgive me and my Ummah. I
seek forgiveness for myself and all of you". (recorded by As-Suyooti
from 'Uqbah Bin 'Aamir and Abu Ad-Dardaa' and in Al-Jaami' As-Sagheer it was
classified as a Hadeeth Hasan.

When the
Messenger (saw) reached Tabuk Yuhannah Bin Ru'bah the leader of Aylah
approached him and made a treaty with him and agreed to pay him the Jizyah. The
people of Jurbaa and Adhraj also came and agreed to give the Jizyah. He (saw)
stayed in Tabuk for a number of days and then returned to Al-Madinah
Al-Munawwarah without war or fighting.

O People:
There were many great benefits attained from the Ghazwah of Tabuk, the most
important of which was the demise of the stature, standing and fear of the
Romans within the souls of all of the Arabs and the display of the power of the
Islamic State as the single great power in the region, regionally and
internationally. The unifying of the Arabian Peninsula was completed under the
rule of the Messenger (saw) and after Tabuk many delegations from the Arab
tribes came to Al-Madinah from all over the Arabian Peninsula to declare their
entrance into Islaam and the entrance of those whom they had come from. For
this reason the ninth year of Hijrah was known as the year of delegations and Tabuk
was the starting point for the Islamic conquest of the lands of Ash-Shaam
(greater Syria) in addition to the beginning of the continuous Islamic
conquests of further lands which were continued by the noble Khulafaa and great
military commanders and proof enough of this is the fact that Khalid Bin Waleed
is buried in Homs which had been the military headquarters of the defeated Heraclius,
and today his grave is shaken by the missiles and bombs of betrayal and
treachery by the one afflicted by hatred and spite.

O people:
This therefore was the situation of the Muslims in the past in the month of
Rajab from the past in the days of the Messenger of Allah (saw) and the Noble
Khulafaa so how is the situation in the month of Rajab today in the days of the
unjust Kings and force wielding villains? It is a question that causes the body
to shudder when just thinking about its answer and the hearts jump out of
terror associated to the gravity of their situation. What would we say the
first people of Rajab when they went out against the Romans within the very
heart of their homeland whilst today the Romans are waging war against us in
the heart of our homeland? What would we say to the people of the first Rajab
when they recaptured Bait Al-Maqdis from the first crusaders in Rajab whilst
new crusaders have come in our day and occupied Bait Al-Maqdis and then handed
it over to the Jews after the destruction of the Khilafah in the month of
Rajab? What is our response to the French General Goruo who kicked the grave of
Salaah ud-Deen and said: Indeed we have returned O Salaah ud-Deen!? And how do
we reply to the British General Allenby who stood upon the Zaitoon Mountain and
said: Now the crusader wars have ended? What would we say to the people of the
first Rajab who gathered their armies in Tabuk in the Arabian Peninsula to open
and conquer the lands of Ash-Shaam in spite of the severity and hardship of
their undertaking? And because of their act Allah turned to all of them in
forgiveness and He (swt) revealed the Quraan amongst them that will be recited
until the day of Judgement. This is whilst we witness in our day the Muslim
armies participating in joint military exercises, which they have named ‘Tabuk’, to refine
their military experiences and strengthen their military cooperation with Egypt
Al-Kinaanah and the land that they have named Saudi. They have wealth that is
so abundant that it has reached saturation point whilst the weak oppressed men,
women and children in Ash-Shaam (Syria), Burma, Palestine and Kashmir amongst
others in the Muslim lands are in pain and are suffering. They are crying out
for help and support and they find that there is no one to help or come to
their aid except for Allah (swt), and so Hasbunallah Wa Ni’mal Wakeel (Allah is
sufficient for us and the best to be relied upon).

The Second part of the Khutbah:

O People:
Our rulers have taken our armies away from their main role that emanates from
their Aqueedah. This is because the Muslim army is the protector of Islaam, the
carrier of its Da’wah and the one who brings victory to its people. They
respond to the calls of help from the oppressed and they raise the banners in
unison responding even if their means are meagre and their weapons are of a
lesser level. So what are your thoughts today and huge budgets are in the hands
of foolish rulers and they spend more than half of them on their armies! So
where do they spend these huge sums of wealth and to whom? And for whose sake
and support do they train these armies, ready and prepare them? And where do
they stand in relation to the words of Lord of the worlds in His noble Book:

وَإِنِ اسْتَنْصَرُوكُمْ فِي الدِّينِ فَعَلَيْكُمُ النَّصْرُ

And if they seek your help in regards to the Deen then it is your duty to
help them (Al-Anfaal 72).

And where do they stand in relation to the statement of the Messenger
(saw): <> Abu
Daawood.

So
how are the people of Ash-Shaam supported when the Muslim armies will not move?
However there is a Hikmah (wisdom) to Allah in this as the armies of the
Khilafah in Ash-Shaam will soon be moving by the will of Allah to free the
crippled armies of Egypt and the Arabian Peninsula amongst others from the
scourge of the Ruwaibidaat (Rulers).

O People: The
Messenger of Allah (saw) sat in a place in his place of prayer in Tabuk and he
looked in the direction of the right and he raised his hands indicating towards
the people of Yemen and then he said: ‘Iman is over there’. And he looked to
the east, pointed and said: ‘Verily harshness and hardheartedness is in
al-Faddaadeen (Camel herders) from the people of Al-Wabr from the direction of
the east where the horns of the Shaytaan rise’. And in another version: ‘Indeed
the harshness and hardheartedness is in Al-Faddaadeen where the horns of the
Shaytaan rise, Rabee’ah and Mudarr’. And in another relation that is
classified as Saheeh upon the conditions of Muslim: ‘Imaan (belief) is in
Yemen and Kufr (disbelief) is from the east where the horns of the Shaytaan
rise, tranquillity is from the sheep herders and boastfulness and pride is from
the Faddaadeen, the people of Al-Wabr and Al-Khail. And the Maseeh (Dajjaal)
will come from the east and he will endeavour to attack Al-Madinah until he
will get behind Uhud when the angels will force his face towards Syria
(Ash-Shaam) and there he will perish, there he will perish’.

And how
truthful your word is O Messenger of Allah! Here are the rulers who have the
hollow harsh hearts from amongst the Faddaadeen and they have brought together
their militaries for training exercises which they have called ‘Tabuk’ and how
great the distance is between this Tabuk and the Tabuk of the past! The Tabuk
of the past was one of Jihaad, honour and might whilst the Tabuk of today means
fleeing from the fight, disgrace, humiliation, defeat and betrayal. And the
solution is none other than the establishment of the Khilafah that will restore
the affairs to what they are meant to be. O Allah destroy the rulers of the Tabuk
of our day and send us a ruler who will renew the Tabuk of our past and Toobaa
(Glad tidings of Jannah) to the people of Ash-Shaam, the graveyard of the
Shuhadaa and the place of destruction of Ad-Dajjaal.

The struggle between the Islamic Ummah as one
Ummah and the Kuffar as peoples and nations continued for thirteen consecutive
centuries. The conflict between Islam as a Deen, her unique way of life and
Kufr also continued throughout these past thirteen centuries. At the advent of
the thirteenth century (nineteenth century CE), the capitalist system, which is
a system of Kufr, challenged the system of Islam in its thoughts and emotions.
It was but a short round before the Muslims fell defeated. It was an intellectual
blow that was followed by the destructive political subjugation. However, Islam
was not truly defeated and it will never be defeated, because it and it alone
is the truth. How is it that Islam remains in the arena of conflict whilst its
followers were defeated and they did not realise its position in the struggle?
As for this challenge to Islam’s thoughts, it took place by attacking the
Islamic thoughts through bringing extensive criticism and falsification against
them. The Kafir nations confronted the ummah demanding solutions for new and
diverse problems: Demanding their rules (Ahkaam) and the manner in which
they would be solved. The position of the Muslims as regards to these two
issues was one of utter weakness. They tried to retaliate but with failed and
twisted attempts. The Muslims were demoralised which led to indifference.

The capitalists attacked polygyny by claiming
that it was unjust for man to be allowed to marry two, three or four women.
They accused Islam of disgracing the honour of the woman. The followers of
Capitalism slandered the Islamic rules on divorce, articulating lies about the
so called betrayal of women and destruction of homes. “How can it be allowed
for a man to divorce a woman whenever he wants when they were tied together
with an eternal bond?” It attacked the Khilafah and labelled it a dictatorship.
“How can the ruling be just if all of the mandatory powers are with one man who
is prone to error and despotism?” They claimed that (for the Muslims) the
Khaleefah had a religious sanctity that grants him immunity from any criticism
or reproach. They attacked Jihad and said it was an aggression against others
and that it meant the spilling of blood.
Thus Jihad was labelled brutal beyond words. They attacked the concept
of al-qada wal-qadar (the divine fate and destiny) by claiming that it meant
submission to the events of the time and that it was holding the people back
from assuming the burdens of life. In this manner they began to study the
Shar'ai rules and the Islamic thoughts, pursued them and brought extensive
criticism and defamation against them; they portrayed them as corrupt thoughts
that contradict the truth and treat problems incorrectly. In addition to this,
they began to present their answers to the problems and asked what Islam’s
opinion was regarding these problems, questioning Islam in its capacity for
solutions. They inquired about Islam’s verdict on insurance. They asked about
the trade relations between states and what is the Shar'ai rule regarding them:
“does Islam support the freedom of exchange or does it support trade
protection?” They inquired over the issue of parliamentary system and free
elections: “what is the stance of Islam regarding them?” They sought answers
about inclinations in legislation: “does Islam prioritise the material
inclination or the spiritual inclination?” Is the spirit of the text or its
letter to be considered? They inquired about general freedoms such as the
freedom of the individual, freedom of opinion and religious freedom. “Has Islam
come with any of these freedoms?” They philosophised about the spiritual
aspect: “is it thinking and thought? Or is it morals and virtuous acts? Or is
it what the ancients said, that Ruh (spirit) is opposite to body and
that man is composed of body and spirit?” With this approach, they highlighted
problems that have taken place and that occur to man, problems which take place
only in a society such as the capitalist society and not in the Islamic
society. So they asked about the solutions for these problems. These were
questions of disapproval, implying that Islam was incapable in this regard, and
that it did not contain any explanation for them and that Islam did not have
the capacity to give solutions.

Capitalism was not content with just that,
but proceeded to criticise Islamic emotions. Thus it denounced the Muslim’s
adherence to the rules of Islam. It said that adherence to the rules produces
partisan bigotry and disgusting fanaticism and that people should rise against
such things. They attacked the Muslim’s hatred for Kufr and the Kuffar, and
their love for Islam and the Muslims. They called this religious bigotry. The capitalists said that a human being is
the brother of another human being whether he likes him or hates him. “There is
no difference between a Muslim and a Jew.” The Kuffar said each person is
entitled to own religion and his own opinion, and they are all merely
opinions with no way of justifying one over another. “So why should there
be discrimination between religions and discrimination in love and hate between
human beings?” In addition to this, they stirred up nationalistic agitation.
They provoked in the Turks the emotions of sovereignty and incited them against
the Arabs. Simultaneously they provoked in the Arabs the emotions of
sovereignty and provoked them against the Turks. They maligned the Islamic
enthusiasm which becomes angry for the sanctities of Allah and said that it was
religious prejudice. They began to advocate the abandoning of Islam and leaving
the adherence to its rules. They called this religious tolerance. They also
denounced the expression of anger at the critics of the Qur’an and those who
insult the Prophet (saw) or slander the Sahabah
(r.a.). They claimed all this to be scholarly research and debate. They said,
as examples, that the Qur’an narrates the story of Ibraheem, but in history
there is no one by the name of Ibraheem to verify this story, and that Muhammad
claimed that the Qur’an is from Allah, but Muhammad brought this Qur’an from
his own genius and he claimed that it was from Allah so that the people would
follow it. They said much more than this and then they insisted that the
Muslims should not be enranged over these lies and that they should accept this
blasphemy in the name of scholarly research! In this manner they began to
pursue the emotions characterized by the thoughts of Islam, in terms of the
emotions of happiness, anger, displeasure, approval, love and hate. They
changed the motive behind such emotions so that they lost their quality as
Islamic emotions.

A glaring challenge was thrown down to Islam
by the systematic assault on its thoughts, rules and emotions. It was natural,
even inevitable, that the Muslims should have accepted this challenge, and
plunged themselves into the intellectual battlefield with the Kuffar. Not only
that, it was obligatory on them to carry the initiative against Kufr and the
Kuffar because they are Da’wah carriers and people who convey a Message.
However the reality was that the Muslims weakened before the challenge in a
manner which incited derision and ridicule of them, and covered them with shame
and humiliation. So they came up with excuses for Islam regarding its rules on
polygyny. They began to defend it by saying that polygyny can take place only in
a situation of justice. They avoided the fact that Islam allows divorce and
said that it does not allow it except within certain conditions. They accepted
the accusations against the Islamic Khilafah and were silent over it, and they
tried at the end of the Ottoman era to change its system. After its
destruction, they avoided mentioning it or did not find the courage to mention
it in public. They retreated concerning the issue of Jihad, and considered it
an accusation thrown on Islam. So they responded to this accusation by saying
Jihad is defensive war and not offensive. They renounced the fact that Jihad is
the fight against the Kuffar because they are disbelievers. They defended
al-Qada wal-Qadar by saying that Islam has ordered us not to discuss it and thus
interpreted this as a licence for inaction and submission. In this manner they
consented to what the Kuffar said and allowed Islam to stand accused. They
proceeded to defend Islam in a way that can only be interpreted as a shocking
defeat in the confrontation against the Kuffar. A direct consequence of this
humiliation was that all the rules under attack were abandoned and the rules
and thoughts of Capitalism took their place. As for the new issues and the
problems that only occur in the Capitalist society, they interpreted Islam and
distorted it in relation to them. They said that Islam holds the opinion of al-Massalih
al-Mursalah (unqualified interests), that the law of Allah agrees with mans
interests. They said that wisdom (al-Hikmah) is the lost property of the
believer and he should take it wherever he finds it. Based on this, an attempt
was made to reconcile the solution brought by the capitalist system with Islam.
They adopted it as Islam but Islam is immiscible with such ideas. They said
that Sikurtah (insurance) is not forbidden by Islam. Justification was based on
it being a contract. Others said there is no evidence to prohibit it so it is
allowed, for in origin all things are permitted (mubah). There were those
amongst them who said that insurance is a permitted guarantee allowed by Islam.
They said concerning foreign trade that it should take place according to the
Muslims’ interest. So the state should facilitate it according to the interest,
thus acting according to al-Massaalih al-Mursalah. They allowed the
system of parliament by saying that it was Shura and that Shura has been
permitted by Islam. They followed what the French civil law advocates of the
state of mind and inclination in legislation, so they said: What matters is the
spirit of the text, and the issue relates to the intention. They claimed on
behalf of Islam that it maintains the principle: What matters in contracts are
the aims and meanings and not the words and speech forms. As proof they cited
the saying of the Messenger (saw): “Indeed, actions shall be judged
according to the intentions.” They also claimed that Islam came with
general freedoms and ordered people to adhere to them, and that Islam is the
religion of freedom. They proceeded as the Christians had proceeded before them
by saying that the spiritual aspect is the spirit as opposed to the body, and
that man is composed of matter and spirit. So the spirit should not dominate
the body and the body should not dominate the spirit. In this manner they
became confused and bewildered before the Kuffar’s challenge. They did not
study problems in order to derive solutions or to study the rules in the Kitab
and Sunnah. Rather they adopted the West’s solutions to these problems
wholeheartedly. Muslims then accepted them as Islamic solutions on the basis
that Islam does not forbid them. Some adopted them on the basis of the opinion
of al-Masaalih al-Mursalah as held by certain Imams, and not according
to what the Qur’an and Hadith had brought. The capitalist rules were therefore introduced
by justfying them from Islam. It was inevitable that the laws in society and
the societal transactions (Mu’amalat) of the Muslims would proceed without any
regard for whether they were Islamic or not. Thus the capitalist rules became
established and Islam was forgotten. (The altering of the thoughts facilitated
the changing of the common emotions as long as it was easy to change the
thoughts.) Thus aversion to the strict adherence to the rules of Islam became
widespread because the people considered it as religious fanaticism. Then the
aversion moved to encompass the discrimination between the Muslims and the
Kuffar, and between Islam and other religions. The concept of ‘nationalism’
came to stir the emotions and the Islamic zeal was buried. Thus, showing anger
towards any attack on the Qur’an came to be seen as a sign of backwardness and
decline. This is because, in their view, this assault constituted impartial
scholarly research. With this the Islamic sentiments were wiped out. Nothing
remained of the Islamic emotions except the priestly emotions, the emotions of
worship. This was the shocking indignity which the Muslims faced before the
capitalist system’s contest with Islam. This would almost have been a defeat
for Islam if the Islamic thoughts that were attacked were not in fact correct
and true. That is to say if they were false as the attackers have described
them, whilst the attacking Capitalist thoughts were not false and a lie, rather
they were true and agreed with reality. This would have also been the case
if the Islamic emotions, which were attacked, were not fit for man in the sense
that they are emotions which contradict the sublime values and nature of man.
If this were the case, then the defeat would not have been restricted to the Muslims
only, as regards the thoughts they carry, the relationships according to which
they deal with one another, and the political situation. Rather this defeat
would have led to the eradication of Islam from intellectual and emotional
existence in the same way as it was removed from political existence. However,
the reality is contrary to that, for the defeat before the capitalist system’s
crusade against Islam was a defeat of Muslims and not of Islam. That is why the
factors of waging the attack again against the capitalist system and Kufr still
exist the same way they existed when they defeated Kufr and Kuffar. These
factors are the thoughts and emotions of Islam. This is what gives reason for
hope and reminds us of the days of victory, instigates the revival, moves the
human disposition (Fitrah) and makes the return to carrying the Islamic Da’wah
to the world an impending reality and not just a desire and yearning.

As for the thoughts of Islam being the only
true and correct thoughts, and the capitalist aggressor’s thoughts being false
and untrue, this is proven from the reality of the thoughts themselves. Thus,
the capitalist thoughts which consider polygyny a mistake while considering it
correct to restrict the man to one wife, are solutions applied to the reality
of the human being and not some logical hypotheses. So where exists a society
in the world, in which there is no more than one woman for a man? There is no
society in the world where there aren’t at least some men who have more than
one wife. However, some of them call their partners mistresses or girlfriends
and some of them call them wives. Do the rules allowing polygyny, which leave
the choice for a man to practise it or leave it, thus making the second, third
or fourth woman a legally recognised wife and not a mistress or girlfriend,
agree with the natural disposition (Fitrah) of man and address the
problem? Or do the rules which prohibit polygyny agree with the natural
disposition (Fitrah) of man and solve the problem, when they remain silent
at having relations with more than a woman illegally? and which remain silent
when this is not adhered to, i.e. since it is not allowed? Or is making the
living together of spouses one of companionship and choice: “either you retain
her on reasonable terms or release her with kindness.” [TMQ 2:229]? He would
keep her if living together in a state of happiness for both spouses or he
would divorce her if living together is the cause of their misery; does this
not accord with the happiness and tranquillity of the spouses? Or does the
imposition of a forced life together, even if it causes the worst type of
misery, achieve the happiness and tranquillity of the spouses?

The reality of ruling is that the Ummah has
the authority to give the responsibility to whoever she wishes. In terms of
practising this authority, this cannot be done except by one person; it will
not be for two or more as an absolute matter of fact. However, this one person
will restrict himself to a specific program which he believes to be correct and
he cannot go beyond it. What controls this single ruler, in addition to the
motives of his belief in the system by which he is restricted, i.e. in addition
to his taqwa or what is known as his own conscience, is the nation he
rules accounting him by speech if he misapplies the system or by force if he
betrays the system. This is on condition that the Ummah does not disobey him in
what he orders of the Fard, Mandoob and Mubaah, but does
not obey him in any forbidden and sinful action. This is the reality of the
Khilafah. So which one of the two ruling systems agrees with reality and is
correct in its application: the system of Islam or the democratic system, which
claims that it is the nation which practises the ruling? This claim is
impossible to implement therefore it is a lie, for the only one who holds
authority in a Democracy is the prime minister with the assistance of the
ministers.

As for Jihad, it is slander against Islam to
say that it is only a defensive war. Furthermore, such a statement contradicts
the reality of Jihad in the time of the Messenger (saw) until the end of the
Islamic state. This is because Muslims themselves used to initiate the fighting
with the Kuffar and they used to adopt this as a method to spread Islam. It is
a lie against the Qur’an, for Allah (swt) said in the explicit verses of the
His Book: “Fight against those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the Last
Day, nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger and
those who do not acknowledge the religion of truth among the people of the
Scripture, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel
themselves subdued” [TMQ 9:29]. He (swt) also said: “Fight those of the
disbelievers who are close to you, and let them find harshness in you” [TMQ
9:123]. He (swt) also said: “O Prophet [saw]! Urge the believers to fight” [TMQ
8:65].

It is evident that Jihad is a material war against Kuffar in order to
establish the rule of Islam. Its cause is to fight the Kuffar who have refused
Islam after it has been presented it to them in a manner that draws attention,
i.e. Islam should be offered in a state that attracts attention, then Jihad
will take place. This is what any ideology which is believed in by any nation
dictates upon her. She prepares the material power and attains a strong
military spirit in addition to this. Based on this material power she begins
political battles and diplomatic manoeuvres, thus creating a situation through
which the Da’wah is conveyed and the political status of the state is
promoted. When the material friction takes place then fighting is inevitable.
The Cold War represented nothing other than this situation, when each of the
two camps attempted to spread their own ideology. Their well-equipped military
forces were thus prepared to engage in fighting, but this ultimately did not
materialise. Likewise, there existed a similar situation before the advent of
World War II between the Nazis and the so-called free world. Before that it was
between Islam and Capitalism and so on and so forth. The reality of life is
that there are thoughts which are contrary to each other. These thoughts are
embodied in states and material power is utilised to spread them and defend
them using political, cultural, economic and military means. This is the
reality of Jihad. It is to fight using material force for the sake of the
thought after exhausting the political and cultural styles. However, the
Islamic army or the spirit of Jihad is not like the German military which is a
military power for the purpose of putting the (German) people above the other
peoples. Rather, it is the military force that removes the material obstacles
in front of the Islamic Call in order to make the people embrace Islam and join
with the rest of the Muslims to form one Ummah, in which there is no
superiority for one Muslim over another except in Taqwa (the fear of Allah).

Al-Qada wal-Qadar, as a meaning of these two
words together, is the actions which fall within the sphere that controls man,
i.e. which takes place against his will, together with the attributes of
objects. As for the specific meaning of the word Qadar, it is the knowledge of
Allah. Thus it has nothing to do with the voluntary actions of man for which he
is accounted by Allah, just as he is accounted in the Dunya by the
state, parents and guardians. Where is the fatalism in this understanding of
Al-Qada wal-Qadar? Where was the fatalism when the Muslims, with this
understanding, conquered the world and subdued other nations? Moreover, adoption of this concept forces the
person to investigate, study, and assess the outcome and consequences of an
action before undertaking it, so that he is clear on the aspects of blame and
accountability. There is also the view of the action after it has occurred
whether with or without his choice, is that it has occurred and it is finished.
Thus, one must accept that it has happened, but one should not necessarily
accept what has happened, and thus act to change it. Thus the event that
happened as a Qadar (fate) according to the knowledge of Allah, man must accept
that it has happened and is finished. He should not feel agitation or worry.
Neither should he accept what has happened, thus leaving it without remedy.
Rather he should not accept the situation that arose due to what happened, so
as to treat it after it happened. Those two views together are indispensable
such that life continues with vitality and force in a real and practical manner
in accordance with high values. The fact that he is accounted for the voluntary
actions whereas he is not blamed for the non-voluntary actions, because it is
not within his ability to repel them. This is the fact that every action that
has happened would not have happened except according to the knowledge of
Allah. All of that insures the presence of those two viewpoints. In other
words, it makes a person proceed in his actions not based on imagination,
theoretical hypotheses, or whims, nor linked to continuous sorrow and sadness
over what has already occurred; rather he moves forcefully in a real and
practical manner, in accordance with the high values required by life. That is
why the view of Qadar on its own and Qada and Qadar together incites man and
makes him active, and it stands between him and hopelessness and sorrow, just
as it stands between him and laziness and lethargy. The focus is not regarding
the voluntary actions before undertaking them, rather it is regarding the
actions after they have been carried out and the actions which took place
outside the sphere of his control. This is because such events have occurred
and the matter is finished. So he must not feel sorrow or pain that torments
the soul and deviates it from its sublime goal in life and from entering the
mainstream of life. How far is this from what the Capitalists have in terms of
agonising pain and distressful sorrow felt by the losers, which make the word
‘luck’ play such a big role in their lives? Consequently, belief in Qadar and
belief in Qada and Qadar is one of the greatest blessings for the mind and one
of the greatest incentives to plunge into the battlefield of life with courage
and dignity. This is because in the sphere which man controls, he is
responsible for all his voluntary actions. He is obliged to be aware of them
and bear responsibility. If a mistake or misguided act took place then he must
bear the consequences. However, he must also realise that what has happened,
whether correct or incorrect, has happened with the Knowledge and Comprehension
of Allah (swt). It was inevitable that it would happen. Therefore he should not
be preoccupied by it, rather he should move on, i.e. persevere in life. As for
the sphere which controls him and in which the actions occur without his
choice, he is not responsible for them and he will not bear their consequences.
Furthermore, they happened with the Knowledge and Comprehension of Allah (swt),
so it was inevitable that they would happen. Therefore man is not allowed to
stand preoccupied with what happened, rather he must move on. This is the
greatest of characteristics a person can possess in this life.

This is the reality of some of the Islamic
thoughts which were savaged by the Kafir colonialists. This is also the reality
of the capitalist thoughts with which the Islamic thoughts were criticised.
From this reality it becomes clear that the thoughts being attacked are true
and that the thoughts that were attacking are false. The intellectual weakness
of the carrier of the true thought in comprehending it does not mean it is not
true, just because the one who carries it was not able to explain it or because
he consented to it standing accused. Also the eloquence of the carrier of
falsehood does not mean it is not fabricated, just because its carrier was able
to disguise falsehood as truth. Rather the true thought is the one which agrees
with the reality which it indicates, or it agrees with a natural disposition
(Fitrah) with which man has been created. In other words, truth is that which
agrees with the reality, whilst falsehood is that which does not agree with the
reality. So what matters is the nature of the thought and its reality and not
its carrier, whether he could explain it forcefully or not.

Friday, May 24, 2013

A short clip referring to a ex Israeli Mossad chief saying that Israel's best man in Syria is Assad - he who has continued his father's legacy of not lifting a finger at the Israeli occupation of the Golan Heights and general subjugation of Syria by the Israelis.

Moaz Al-Khateeb is still striving like a snake to gather the betrayers from the opposition to accept the selling out of the revolution and to save the Syrian regime in response to American pressures.

They wish to finish off the revolution with politics after the failure of the massacres and destruction perpetrated with western compliance.

The form of the guidelines for the coming Geneva summit is - The formation of a joint government made up of members from the regime and opposition with limited mandatory powers whilst the army and security apparatus remains untouched with no accountability or justice being brought against the criminals and the tyrant remains in his post whilst retaining the right to stand in the forthcoming elections.

Is it possible for any believer or rational sane or free person to be satisfied with the remaining of the regime after they went out on to the streets to change it and after the sacrifices we have made in its path and whilst he is still committing the same murderous crimes against us?

Whoever claims that he is from amongst the opposition or is attached to the revolution and thereafter accepts this conspiracy then he is in truth an enemy of the revolution and it is necessary to regard him to be on the same said as the regime and to deal with him upon that basis.

The revolution will not halt half way upon the path towards its goal because that would mean suicide. In addition the honourable men will not be able to accept to live alongside the murderers who violated the honours of the women and slaughtered their children, and there is no doubt that they can make deals upon their Deen.

The revolution will continue upon its path until it achieves the victory and this is the path of every true and real revolution. A revolution is not a pastime and especially when you are facing the most criminal, heinous and impure regime that history has known.

We are a believing Ummah, the descendants of the Sahaabah (rah) and the followers of Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم. Our land is Ash-Shaam of Imaan and the homeland of Islaam (Uqra Daar il Islaam). We will never weaken and never surrender; it is either victory of Shahaadah (Martyrdom). And whoever finds weakness in his Deen then he should examine history and the western revolutions and that they did not achieve their goal except by blood and that it was not completed until after a long period of suffering.

Our revolution in Ash-Shaam, in spite of the large number of enemies and the meagre number of friends and possibilities, has already achieved a lot. It is still progressing and the awareness, will, experience and strength has increased and indeed what it has managed to achieve up until now despite the scale of attacks against it, is an indication that there is a divine caretaking for the revolution that is compensating for its material weaknesses and deficiencies.

The whole region is boiling right now, Tripoli and other towns and cities are also now involved in the revolution and are giving their blood easily in order to support Al-Qusair, and what awaits them in terms of goodness is better for them. However those who do not believe in Allah, they have a covering over their eyes and they will not see.

Verily the fire lit in Ash-Shaam will never be put out until the regime of Al-Asad has burned down along with its allies, the hypocrites in Lebanon, Iraq and Iran. And until the Jewish entity has been dealt with and the lands have been cleansed from all of the western influences and this will be after it has spread to encompass Jordan, Lebanon and Iraq so as to return to the Ummah her decision making and authority that had been stripped from it and restore the rule of their Lord that had been pushed aside and the promised Khilafah State.

Wednesday, May 22, 2013

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

The Tyrant of ash-Sham and the Iranian Regime and its Hizb in Lebanon Repeat Hulagu's Destruction of Baghdad in Qusair!

Approximately seven centuries ago in the year 656 AH, Hulagu Khan destroyed Baghdad after a severe siege. People were massacred in large numbers, houses and mosques were demolished, books and libraries were burned, and crops and livestock were destroyed. The Tigris River, penetrating Baghdad, was witness to this destruction as its water was diluted with human blood and the ink from books. Today stripped from any humility before Allah, His Messenger or even the believers, tyrants indulge in Muslims' blood in Qusair.

The tyrant of ash-Sham strikes Qusair with lethal explosives and competing with him is Hizb ‘Iran' (Hezbollah) with its missiles and launchers, the latter of which is indirectly but directly lead by Iran through human interference and logistic support in the form of trucks and airplanes. The attack on the area of Qusair and its orchards has been on-going for days, even weeks now, expanding to its houses and mosques; and neither people nor trees and stones are spared from the tyrant and his henchmen's bombings. This time it is the ‘Asi River which runs through Qusair, whose water is witness to the effects of the bombing, killing and destruction.

All of this is to please America and its allies and the Jewish state and its henchmen who want to keep Bashar to protect the interest of the colonialist Kuffar and the Jews. This will go on so long as it will take them to groom a new agent to replace another agent. Meanwhile the tyrant, the Iranian regime and its party assure them: I am hastening, America, so you can be pleased with me!

These brutal attacks were given the green light by America, assuming that more killing in the land of ash-Sham will cause them to accept the American initiatives. Therefore America is producing for them another agent to replace his predecessor by holding conferences and negotiations under the title of "peaceful solutions". America rebuilds the secular system after face-changes, because it understands that the direction of the people of Ash-Sham is Islam. In doing so America has instructed its front and rear battle lines to use all means of killing and destruction including all sorts of massacres to force people into subordination to their commands and plots. And these are the monstrous attacks!

It is possible for the Muslim to comprehend the malice of the tyrant of ash-Sham against the Muslims and Islam, since he proudly declares his system is a secular regime in opposition to Allah, His Messenger and the believers. But Hizb ‘Iran' and its Hizb in Lebanon speak of Islam and Islamically. So how can they participate with secularism rather compete with him in killing Muslims, bombing their mosques and killing their women and children? If they are believers, do they not recite the words of their Lord?

"saying with their mouths what was not in their hearts. And Allah is most Knowing of what they conceal" [TMQ 3:167]

We have become witness to the paradoxes that are staunchly rejected by the sane mind making the blood boil in one's veins in those with vision and insight, whereas the Jewish entity that violated Palestine and the Golan Heights bomb vital facilities in Syria. However the Syrian regime responds with bombing the elderly, women and children in Syria! Meanwhile Hizb ‘Iran' proclaims to assist the Syrian regime of ridding the Golan Heights from the filth of the Jews when it actually assists the tyrant in destroying Qusair and seizing it from the purity of Islam and its people! Iran used to threaten the Zionist entity with retaliation instead it threatens Qusair and others in ash- Sham, while calm and peaceful with the Zionist entity which violated Palestine and the Golan Heights!

Qusair is being bombed from all directions with the enemies of Allah and His Prophet gathering against it: the Sham's tyrant who is proud of the secularists and the hypocrites who speak with their tongues of which is not in their hearts. They speak of Islam, while concealing their spite towards the people of Islam. Meanwhile all of them rush to destroy Qusair including its inhabitants, plants and even rocks!

All the while, regimes' armies do not mobilize to rescue Qusair nor are they affected by Allah's saying: ((وَإِنِ اسْتَنْصَرُوكُمْ فِي الدِّينِ فَعَلَيْكُمُ النَّصْرُ))"If Allah should aid you, then no one can overcome you" [TMQ: 3:160] Rather they observe the bombing and destruction while counting the martyrs and injured, are not concerned by the screams of the orphans and bereaved mothers. In fact they seem to be waiting with unparalleled patience for Qusair and others in Sham to be obliterated. Heartbreakingly these armies are stationed in their barracks obeying the ruler in his treachery, open transgression and injustice. These armies obey regimes that praise America, spilling the precious Muslim blood to satisfy America and its allies. Is there no honorable man amongst these armies, that Allah will show him the truth and guide his heart? To topple these treacherous regimes and proceed as the commander of his unit or battalion to rescue his people and brethren? Is there no such man?

Nevertheless, there are lions in Qusair resisting the continuous bombings in which tyrants utilize all types of weapons that reach them via America's front lines: Russia and Iran. They resist with weapons which do not amount to a tenth of what the enemy is using. But with hearts of great conviction and tongues speaking the truth, they declare: Either victory or martyrdom to repel the aggression against our religion, our honour, our houses and ourselves! Lions in the face of surrounding tyrants! Lions at a time when mice have roared the lion's roar! The lions of Qusair will be victorious Inshallah in their dunya (life) and the Hereafter! Whatever befalls the believer is good and the reward is for the God-fearing.

Indeed the curse of Qusair will reach the tyrants of ash-Sham and the Iranian regime and its Hizb in Lebanon. Indeed the sacred blood that was spilled will haunt them in their beds in the darkest of the night and throughout the day until the command of Allah is sent down, and can no longer be withstood. Even if they destroyed Qusair, they will attain but humiliation in this dunya (life) and severe torture if they knew,((فَأَذَاقَهُمُ اللَّهُ الْخِزْيَ فِي الْحَيَاةِ الدُّنْيَا وَلَعَذَابُ الْآخِرَةِ أَكْبَرُ لَوْ كَانُوا يَعْلَمُونَ))"So Allah made them taste disgrace in worldly life. But the punishment of the hereafter is greater, if they only knew." [TMQ 39:26] They will be destroyed like their adherents before them! Hulagu and his adherents were expelled after they thought they had defeated the Khilafah in Baghdad and Hulagu had already deemed himself victorious until he himself was destroyed. But the Khilafah returned and climaxed from anew in Cairo and Istanbul, ﴿وَتِلْكَ الْأَيَّامُ نُدَاوِلُهَا بَيْنَ النَّاسِ وَلِيَعْلَمَ اللَّهُ الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا وَيَتَّخِذَ مِنْكُمْ شُهَدَاءَ وَاللَّهُ لَا يُحِبُّ الظَّالِمِينَ﴾ "and these days [of varying conditions] We alternate among the people so that Allah may make evident those who believe and [may] take to Himself from among you martyrs - and Allah does not like the wrongdoers" [TMQ 3:140]

Hizb ut Tahrir reiterates the words of truth (Haqq) that the Messenger of Allah (saw) said to Ka'ab bin ‘Ujra many centuries ago in a Hadith Sahih extracted by al-Hakim in al Mustadrak Ala Assaheain:

"O Ka'ab Bin ‘Ujrah, may Allah give us refuge from the ruling of Al-Sufaha." They said: "Oh Messenger of Allah: What is the ruling of 'Al-Sufaha'?" He said: "Rulers who will be after me. They do not follow my guidance, and they do not implement my Sunnah. The one who follows their lies, and helps them in their oppression, he is not from me, and I am not from him, and he will not be permitted into my Hawd (basin). And the one who did not believe their lies, and did not help them in their oppression, he is from me, and I am from him, and he will be permitted into my Hawd (basin)." This Hadith has been extracted by many Sahabah.

Whoever supports an unjust ruler and authenticates his lies, regardless of the Islamic legal school he follows, be he Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi'i, Hanbali, Zaydi, Ja'fari or Ibadi, the Hadith of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) applies to him:فَأُولَئِكَ لَيْسُوا مِنِّي وَلَسْتُ مِنْهُمْ وَلَا يَرِدُونَ عَلَيَّ حَوْضِي "He is not from me, and I am not from him, and he will not be permitted into my Hawd (basin)," as a clarification of the graveness of this sin. Therefore Hizb ut Tahrir believes in the ayah of Allah ((هُوَ سَمَّاكُمُ الْمُسْلِمِينَ))"Allah named you ‘Muslims'" [TMQ 22:78], speaks the truth, does not fear none other than Allah with the help of the Almighty. Hizb ut Tahrir addresses those who aided and still aid the tyrant of ash-Sham to restore their goodness and repent their wrongful deeds. We ask them to show remorse before the time comes when remorse will no longer be accepted, nor will their repentance be accepted. Will they then be deterred?

To our
Ameer, is this page specific to Fiqhi matters and if it is not so then I have
the following question:

It is
noticeable in the war that is occurring in the land of Ash-Shaam (greater
Syria) that there exists a number of regional axes in addition to the axis of
two main states. 1) The Saudi axis and the key to the work in it is Ash-Sheikh
Al-'Ar'oor and he has for example the Liwaa Al-Islaam (brigade) in Dumaa and he
was in the act of forming the joint military command with Tayfoor (of the
Muslim brotherhood). 2) The Qatari axis: In addition to containing the Syrian
national alliance it has worked as an
obstacle from the beginning to the national council and has supported the
national coordination (council) and has
therefore adopted to support the Syrian Liberation front. It has more than one
key the most significant of which is Azmi Bashaarah. 3) The Turkish axis: It is
dedicated to stabilizing the fragile internal scales of balance, its eye is on
the Kurdish issue firstly and then democracy in Syria secondly and it
represents the axis maintaining the international borders and American policy.
4) The Jordanian axis: It appears that it is in clear opposition to the Turkish
axis. This is because there has been many attempts to form what has been termed
a 'National army' in Jordan however Turkey and America have caused it to fail
through their communications with specific army officers including from them
Mustafa Ash-Sheikh (this is in spite of the continual presence with the
American intelligence agencies and defense department in meetings held in
Jordon). 5) The Kuwait axis: By way of Islamic organizations and people: They
have formed mainly under the title of 'Ahraar Ash-Shaam' and they worked to win
over many and particularly in Ash-Shaam. And on the international level you
have the American Axis and then the English and French axis. And all of this is
related to the opposition. And the question is: What is the shape of the
struggle that is occurring? And what is the shape of the region in terms of
allegiance? And what are the main axis in the struggle? And what is the
solution that each party wishes to achieve?

Jazaakallahu
Khairan.

Answer:

To Al-Faatih
Al-Jadeed:

You have
asked whether this page is for political, intellectual or Fiqhi matters..

Dear
brother, this page is for the purpose of every goodness that can be gained
through communication and as such no question from any topic from amongst the
topics that hold goodness is prevented InshaAllah.

As for your
question related to the axes that are involved in the Syrian struggle, then the
issue is explained as follows:

1) The
effective political influence since the era of Hafiz and Bashar is the American
influence and this regime would work to accomplish the American interests in
the region and act to preserve the Jewish entity and not only in regards to
what was occupied in 1948 but also in regards to the Golan that was occupied in
1967.

2) When the peoples popular movement occurred in Syria and
escalated and Bashar became unable to return matters to what they had been,
America realized that its agents rule was collapsing and its priority became
related to guaranteeing an agent replacement in its place. So it seriously
worked and strove resulting in the establishment of the Syrian national council
and then the alliance... However it was unable to establish roots for these
councils inside Syria and began to fear that the revolutionaries would be able
to bring down the Tyrant before an alternative had been nurtured and as a
result a power that is not aligned to America would emerge.

3) So it
began to give one grace period followed by another and another to Bashar with
fruitless non-decisive projects via the Arab league and United Nations. So it
formed a monitoring committee that was unable to even protect themselves, then
(international/regional) meetings one following another here and there which
came to know decisions and merely gave more time for her to sell who manufactured
opposition group outside Syria so that the people inside would accept them as
rulers.

4) What surprised America was that Islamic emotions and feelings
dominated the internal situation, whether this was represented by those who
held awareness of the Islamic thoughts and its ruling or those who were not
aware. America was also shaken by the calls of the people for the establishment
of the Khilafah whilst the secular voices were almost completely lost despite
the extensive efforts of the media to focus on them!

5) This
environment has struck fear in to the heart of America and its allies and they
fear that matters will slip out of their hands and as such they have began to
focus on three matters or areas:

The first:
Giving the green light to Bashar to kill and oppress in the greatest manner
possible so as to pressure the people inside Syria to accept those America has
manufactured outside Syria and thereafter to bring in these puppets to
establish a secular civil rule in Syria i.e. a change of faces whilst the main foundations
of the regime remain in place.

Secondly:
Then if they are unable to successfully sell their manufactured opposition by
using the massacres of Bashar as leverage then it is expected that they will
resort to international intervention to bring its chosen government and excuses
and arguments for this theatre will be raised when the time necessitates.
However due to the large number of its problems and its internal and foreign
crises it has placed the intervention to the back of its projected plans. And
it will not resort to it unless the first plan mentioned above has failed.

Thirdly:
Through this period of time the destruction of the land has reached such a
level that even if Islam was able to win over the rule in Syria then it would
be a land which has been destroyed and turned to ruins which America and her
allies believe will make the Ummah despair and unable to move towards revival
and productive activity. However America and every one of the enemies of Islam
do not perceive the greatness of this Ummah because within it are the toughest
of men who will build the land in spite of the wishes of the oppressors, and
who will increase the laying of its seeds despite the plots of the hypocrites.
And this Ummah has taken on their like before: The crusaders and the Tartars
who spread corruption, death and destruction in the land and despite this the
Ummah comprehensively overcame them and expelled them and their influence
completely so that they became nothing but a trace as if they had never held
any worth whilst the Ummah returned to life from anew, destroying its enemies
and dealing with them in ways that they could not account for, becoming the
best Ummah raise up from mankind:

You are the best nation produced [as an
example] for mankind. You enjoin what is right and forbid what is wrong and
believe in Allah . If only the People of the Scripture had believed, it would
have been better for them. Among them are believers, but most of them are
defiantly disobedient. (Aali 'Imraan 110).

6) The above
is in regards to America... As for Russia, Turkey, Iran and its allies in
Lebanon then these represent the front lines of America providing Bashar with
weapons and support. They warm up the stage and cool it in accordance to the
American plans. It is within this context that the last meeting between the
American foreign secretary of state and the Russian foreign minister took
place, which was for passing time and closer to jargon than the making of
decisions.

7) As for
Europe, it is attempting to make trouble through its agents and in particular
Qatar and Jordan knowing that America does not give them any weight so she has
let Europe, their master make efforts behind her. So after America went to
Russia and held meetings with her in relation to Syria thus neglecting and
sidelining the European role, the British Prime Minister went to Russia
tracking the American steps to see if there is anything that he can discover
whilst taking care to show that Britain has a role in the issue. The position
of France is not different from that except that the sounds coming from France
are raised aloud whilst the sounds from Britain are lower showing subtlety and
hiding its dirtiness, whilst the result is one and the same in terms of neither
having an effective role in Syria.

8) What
remains to be discussed is the axis of the Ummah and the movement inside Syria
which is as follows:

A minority
who are submissive to the western culture, imprinted with its thoughts and
concepts, they say what they say and call for a secular democratic state which
separates the Deen from life's affairs. Then there is another group which is
larger in number than this minority and carries more weight. They are Muslims
whose eyes are covered, they love Islam and want the Khilafah yearning for the
flag of the Messenger (saw). However they do not announce openly that which
they love and that which they want out of fear of provoking the western
colonial states and they do not raise the flag of Islam out of fear of
instigating nationalist counter claims.

The group
that calls for Islam is divided into two groups:

The first
group that utilizes material actions (i.e. armed struggle) and calls for the
rule of Islam however this group does not possess the correct and complete
awareness of the Islamic thoughts and its rules and how they are applied upon
the current realities.

And a group
that is truthful and sincere who want the Islamic rule 'The rightly guided
Khilafah' in accordance to the methodology that the Messenger of Allah (saw)
proceeded with and so they seek the Nusrah from its qualified (capable) people.

My dear
brother, in all of our actions we stick to the method of the Messenger (saw)
and we place down the straight line against the crooked. We demonstrate the
Haqq and call and urge people to and upon it. This is not only in Ash-Shaam but
there are actions that we perform in other regions and in particular in those
lands that are neighboring Ash-Shaam. InshaAllah these are actions that have
been seen and we ask Allah (swt) to aid us and grant us Tawfeeq.

In
conclusion, America and her allies are preparing deals to guarantee the
well-being of the tyrannical rule and to place grim faces in replacement to
those which are blacker and darker whilst the secular foundations of the
Republican system remains standing. They are expending their efforts to delay
the coming ruling by Islam in Ash-Shaam as the ruling by Islam signifies that
the disbelievers and hypocrites will perish along with their followers and
cronies. Therefore it is obligatory upon the Ummah to not allow them to achieve
their evil goals and for the Ummah to hold firmly upon the Haqq and to make a
covenant with Allah upon that they will never accept any alternative to the
Khilafah, that they will not submit to the manufactured leaders made by the
enemies of Islam in the form of a transitional or temporary government. They
are governments that sing in their praise and conspire against Islam and the
Muslims just like the disbelieving colonialists and hypocrites. So no National
Council that came first, no Syrian alliance that came after and no Hito for the
future can bring any goodness to this Ummah as they are all upon the
methodology of America and its allies.

Followers

Subscribe To

Please note that not all posts are based on the views of the administrators of this site. Please feel free to publish or circulate any material from this site, we would appreciate that you mention it's source. We endeavour to reply to questions posted through the comments on this site however we are not able to respond to all. Although we may reply to the questions asked based on the limited information given, for legislative questions in particular we advise all brothers and sisters to go to a trusted faqih (jurist) knowledgeable in the subject and to ask the question to them explaining the reality of it in a proper manner. This is especially important for complex issues.